User talk:Imzadi1979/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Recent edit to the List of unused highways in the US" page

I added to the "list of unused highways in the US" page, saying there was an unused ramp in Port Huron, Michigan. You removed the addition, saying that the ramp was still in use. However, on the page for the Blue Water Bridge, it is stated that the ramp was blocked off after the first bridge was rehabilitated and remains unused. So is it used or is it unused? Google Maps does not label it as an active road, but there are some cars parked on it in satellite view. 64.33.90.218 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC) X99(anonymous)

@64.33.90.218: I didn't say the ramp was still in use; I said it wasn't unused. The ramp was previously used, so it doesn't belong in the listing.

If the criterion is that we list roadway segments that are no longer used, but were previously used, well, you have thousands of such segments to start adding. Imzadi 1979 → 02:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979:Wouldn't it be "re-adding," since you were the one who deleted all the previously used segment listings back in May? Speaking of which, you only did that right after I added something.(yes, that was me with the South Dakota I-190 edit, I was using a different computer)

New idea: a new page called "List of Abandoned Highways in the US" and move all former unused road listings there. That way, everybody's happy.

64.33.90.218 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC) X99(anonymous)

Would such a list pass the General Notability Guideline? I don't think so, and the current list is quite borderline as it is. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A list of abandoned highways would be an indiscriminate collection of useless information. A closed exit ramp is not worth mentioning anyhere. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: It isn't useless information if someone asks, "Why is this random concrete here and why can't we use it?" or, "Why do these hills look like they once carried ramps?" The latter was one of my first edits to this page in May, about Interstates 90 and 190 in the Rapid City, SD area.

64.33.90.218 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC) X99

Edit: Got an account, changing signature. Xninetynine (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC) X99

My apologies

My apologies for being upset at your revert. I'm still not sure it meets WP's highly strict definition of a proper name, which is stricter than what most Americans, including me,usually follow. Please forgive me. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: apologies accepted, but I don't think the definition is as strict as you think, not when dozens of Featured Articles and Featured Lists observe the "Interstate Highway"–"interstate highway" and "U.S. Highway"–"U.S. highway" distinctions. Imzadi 1979 → 02:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

PR-10

Do you know how to use the Location column in the PR-10 junction list. It's currently blank, and THIS documentation doesn't seem to help. Mercy11 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mercy11: the {{PRint}} template is really a variation of {{jctint}} that assumes the jurisdiction is Puerto Rico. I took a quick look at PR-10, and it looks like every row has |location=none set so that each row has a blank cell in the location column. Can you give me an example of a location you'd set for a row? I think with a good example that I can help you. Imzadi 1979 → 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mercy11: I think I have it figured out. In the municipality column, you can continue to do what you've been doing. Now in the location column, you should be able to add barrios. If the barrio has an article in the [[<Barrio>, Puerto Rico]] format, you can use |location=Barrio, otherwise use |location_special=. This usage would be comparable to the states. –Fredddie™ 04:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fredddie: can you take a quick look at something? I tried to use |lspan= on the article so that locations would span multiple rows, and it doesn't work right. If |location= isn't defined for a row, as it wouldn't be when using |lspan=, it inserts the location cell with [[{{{location}}}, Puerto Rico|{{{location}}}]]. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 13:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Should be better now. |lspan= wasn't properly defined. I had forgotten how {{Jctint/core}} works, which is ironic to me. –Fredddie™ 16:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

My bad

Thanks for taking notice.[1] Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

listing a municipality as a "county seat" in an infobox

I recently saw you removed an edit I made where I listed a municipality as a "county seat" in the infobox for Adrian, Michigan. You stated, "county seat isn't a type of municipal corporation" but I would like to somewhat disagree. A county seat holds the center of government controlling the entire county and is often the largest and most notable municipality within that county... going from unincorporated community, CDP, village, civil township, charter township, city, and ultimately county seat. My agenda at the moment is creating maps and standardizing the inboxes for Michigan municipalities (and including infoboxes for many of the smaller communities that have articles without an infobox). Besides Adrian, I have listed some others as "county seat" in infoboxes through my editing with perhaps the intent of making that the norm for the 83 county seats. If I'm wrong or there's some other precedence that says I shouldn't list it as such, then it's not the end of the world and I won't make that edit in the future. — Notorious4life (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Notorious4life: "county seat" is a status, but it's not a type of settlement. Townships are subdivisions of the county that aren't considered incorporated. Villages are incorporated communities that are not fully independent of the townships that contain them. Cities are incorporated communities that are fully independent of the townships that contained them. That just tells you what type of government is involved. Some large communities, like Canton, aren't incorporated, and others that sound like a city, say Mackinaw City, are really a village. As I'm sure you're aware, the county seat could be any kind of community, incorporated or not, and it doesn't "outrank" any of the others in the county. The county seat is just where the main courthouse and seat of the county's government is located, and that has nothing to do with how the settlement is organized. Imzadi 1979 → 07:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I guess you're right in saying that a county seat doesn't really mean anything, as the title itself doesn't hold any autonomous recognition on its own. Being a county seat doesn't make any one municipality superior to another. I'm very aware of the sub-levels of municipalities in Michigan and am just trying to make a more standardized infobox format across the board for all Michigan municipalities from my current residence in Canton to the smallest unincorporated communities in the Upper Peninsula. I will omit "county seat" from infoboxes in future edits, and I appreciate your dedication to improving Michigan articles. (Notorious4life (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

NY 28

Sorry to mess up your "featured article", what u take as messing up was me fixing it because the photos i moved were in the wrong section. Such as the indian lake photo being in the otsego/herkimer county section when what the photo was showing is in the Hamilton County section? So explain why this is wrong? Bacardi379 (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Imzadi1979, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

List of unused highways in Michigan

The list of unused highways in Michigan had its own AfD, and the page was deleted. However, the AfD labels the final decision as "Keep." If it was okay to keep, why was it deleted? Xninetynine (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)X99

@Xninetynine: the sequence of events is roughly:

1. Article was nominated for deletion, but kept.
2. At at later date, the article was merged back into its parent because it didn't have enough entries. At that time, it was redirected to the parent.
3. Recently, the parent article was deleted, so the redirect was also deleted.

Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Avenida Las Américas

Hello. Do you know what would be the correct parameter to populate into the "type" field of the road infobox for a boulevard-type of city road in Puerto Rico, like Avenida Las Américas? The type would probably fit between that of NY's FDR Drive and Fifth Avenue, but FDR's "parkway" isn't working for state=PR, and the documentation on route types (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_road/doc/type) pointed to by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_road#Unnumbered_roads doesn't seem to include PR or US roads. I left the type field as PR and the route field blank for now, but it's resulting in an infobox with an odd, non-bold name header that doesn't look right. Any help is appreciated. Mercy11 (talk)

@Mercy11: the types are individualized by the state or territory, so that's why "parkway" doesn't work; it hasn't been defined for PR. I'd either use the type for PR-163 in the infobox, or I'd switch from {{infobox road}} to {{infobox street}}. It's that second template that is used on the Fifth Avenue article. Imzadi 1979 → 15:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you know where the types individualized for Puerto Rico are located, that I can read through them and pick the one best suited for Avenida Las Américas? It seems your comment "I'd either use the {XXX} type for PR-163 in the infobox, or ..." is missing some text where I placed the {XXX}. Yes, I could use the Street Infobox, but first I'd like to process the meaning of your entire reply first, to make an informed decision. Thx. Mercy11 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The only types that Puerto Rico has are PR, Urban, Sec, and Ter. Those correspond with the four types of highway shields. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mercy11: there's no missing text there. What is the type for PR-163? That's the type I'd use in that scenario. Imzadi 1979 → 18:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow what’s on WP:METRIC.

WP:METRIC says that articles about other stuff than just America should use si units and non si units approved for si use. If you read WP:METRIC, then you’ll see what I’m talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetricSupporter89 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: and items with clear ties to the US should be using customary measurements first. We don't change in the middle of an article, so even a comparison in area between the US and Europe, in the article on the US, would still be customary-first, because the primacy is set at the article level, not the topic level within an article. Per WP:ENGVAR, articles written in one variation of English, which includes American English with customary unit primacy, should be left in that variation. As for the Rockies, most of their length is in the US, giving it clear ties to the US, ergo, customary first.

Finally, if you can't remember to sign your postings properly, please feel free to stop gracing my digital doorstep here with them. Imzadi 1979 → 05:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Imzadi. The Rocky Mountains have substantial parts in both the United States and Canada. The consensus I've seen is that international articles should be metric-first. —hike395 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Kansas Turnpike

Hello, I noticed that you reverted the changes that I made to Kansas Turnpike, calling them "radical". Could you please explain further the reason for your revert? All I did was update the toll rates to the current rates as of 2018, and moved some sections around to put the article in the standardized format per WP:USRD/STDS. After you reverted, I changed the toll rates back to what they should be, and I just wanted to hear your input before I revert the rest of the article. Thanks! Needforspeed888 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If you'd read the standards page, Needforspeed888, the section order is not as set in stone as you're thinking. The history section can come before the route description; it does not have to second.

We're also a bit conservative in such changes with a Featured Article, and it's not usually as simple as just copying and pasting sections into a new order. You have to read through each section to make sure that the text of the RD (that was second) doesn't assume that information was previously mentioned in the history (that you're moving second), etc.

For instance, if in the original KDOT or KTA was mentioned in the history for the first time, the text would spell out "Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT)". If you blindly copied and pasted the sections into a new order, now a "KDOT" reference in the RD comes first and the full name comes later in the history. That's the simplest example, but more subtle situations can arise where the history section explains a unique roadway configuration, and the RD just references that situation without explanation. Reorder them, and does that make sense any more to the reader reading from top to bottom? Imzadi 1979 → 04:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

M-28 (Michigan highway) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that M-28 (Michigan highway) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 22 February 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 22, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry

Sorry for my edits to the article on two-lane expressways. I didn't realize changing to the junction format on the list of Super-2's was inappropriate formatting. I won't do it again. --72.25.20.233 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

M-28 Highway

Why does Canada not need to be hyperlinked? That does not make sense to me. XKnuckLez (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@XKnuckLez: we try not to wikilink too many terms within an article. Common terms, such as large countries like the US or Canada, are not linked as a result in many cases. Imzadi 1979 → 01:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Template deletions

I am wondering why Template:US 75, Template:U.S. Routes, and Template:Dallas Streets have nothing to do with U.S. Route 75 in Texas. US 75 is a U.S. route, is the parent route of another U.S. route in Texas and Dallas, and is listed as one of the National Highways in the Dallas Streets template. I can see why Template:Dallas Streets wouldn't necessarily belong on the country-wide full-route U.S. Route 75 article, but U.S. Route 75 in Texas is a very integral part of the highway system in Dallas. I appreciate your time, and hope that my civil query is deserving of it. Shaggylawn65 (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shaggylawn65: those templates do not directly link to that article. For the first two, {{US 75}} and {{U.S. Routes}} do not link to state-detail articles, nor should they; they, or the equivalents, are just not included in state-detail articles.

As for {{Dallas Streets}}, it also does not link to U.S. Route 75 in Texas; instead, it links to Central Expressway (Dallas). That template should not be modified to link to US 75 in this case because a freeway isn't a city street. The navbox should redone to fix the scope issues and to eliminate the misnomer in highway terminology. Namely, Interstate and U.S. Highways are actually state highways, albeit with a nationally coordinated number. The groupings should be eliminated and the freeways eliminated as non-streets. Then the entries should be alphabetized together by street names, and any that are parts of state highways should have that highway designation retained in parentheses as currently shown. Imzadi 1979 → 05:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

About that edit to Portal:Michigan highways – didn't read the maintenance status template carefully before trying to help with the errors. I had no intention of imposing anything on a portal others are maintaining. - Evad37 [talk] 03:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Thanks for taking the time to explain the reason for your revert. TJRC (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@TJRC: you're welcome. Imzadi 1979 → 23:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Road signing: Secondary shields on Tertiary roads

Moved to Talk:List of highways in Puerto Rico § Puerto Rico Road signing: Secondary shields on Tertiary roads

Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The changes needed for MN-610

Parts of the page claim that MN-610 doesn't reach I-94. Other parts state otherwise. Google Maps does show it going that far west. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Will Pittenger: adding a tag like that without any explanation does not accomplish anything though. Update what? Now you've offered an explanation, but it would have been easier for you to have supplied the necessary copy edit to tweak the verb tenses as needed to just update the article in the first place. Imzadi 1979 → 23:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)

Heads up ... Victoria would like to run this at the end of May. This one is sitting in my Sandbox/1, with a note that it probably needs more work. Thoughts? Not my call. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Eyeballing it I see some "full citation needed" templates. It does seem a bit low on newspaper articles, but maybe there aren't any. @Mitchazenia: --Rschen7754 17:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. While I'm here: Ealdgyth is planning to run Interstate 94 in Michigan on May 13. I'm having a hard time getting it done. Imzadi and Rschen: feel free to write the blurb, or if you prefer, let me know what you'd like to see in the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: I am a bit concerned. We have a lot less road articles making FA in the last few years (only 3 in the last 2 years) yet we seem to be burning through the road articles that have not run at about 12-13 a year. At this rate we are going to completely run out in 2 years. Is there any way you can slow down? --Rschen7754 17:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Ealdgyth. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been gradually reducing the number of roads per month (used to be three or four) - it's just a fact that we're running out of FAs that haven't run. If I run less roads, I then have to run more of other subjects which are also not being produced in great numbers... when we get to really low numbers, we'll start rerunning FAs... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It used to be a frequency of one per quarter, now it's more than one per month on average. I agree, the frequency needs to be reduced, and frankly, I-94 shouldn't run next month and should be preserved for the anniversary of its completion or another appropriate date. Imzadi 1979 → 22:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Interstate 94 in Michigan scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Interstate 94 in Michigan has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 13 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 13, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: this shouldn't run next month and should be held for an appropriate anniversary date, such as the anniversary of its completion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Not everything can run on an anniversary date - compare the number of articles on Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/No date connection to the ones with connections Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/Date connection, you'll see that we're running short of non-connected dates... there has to be times when things run on non-connected dates. Unfortunately, I don't have a heck of a lot of choices with the dwindling numbers of FAs... we need more reviewers (with moving, I'm not able to devote time to reviewing, before I get told to review myself...I am doing well to keep up with scheduling. We should be moved by June, when I'll hopefully return to reviewing.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I've stopped nominating articles at FAC, partially because I've gotten tired of them running on non-anniversary dates. The hassles of dealing with a Main Page day aren't worth it for a random date to me. It's been several years since I've nominated something, and it could be several more at this rate. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, unfortunately, I don't have any policies or guidelines that say that FAs can only run on dates that are connected to them. If you want to suggest such a policy, there may indeed be support for it, or there may not, I don't know. I, obviously, would recuse from any such discussion due to being a scheduler. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, the frequency of the articles running has increased. It used to be once per quarter on average, and now road articles are running once or twice per month, depleting an already dwindling supply of the articles. Imzadi 1979 → 23:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Interstate Shields

Hi. You are more of an expert at this than I am, so I thought I would ask you. I just spoke to the MoDOT state signage director a few weeks ago. He informed me that Missouri no longer uses the Interstate shields with the state name in them, instead opting for what us road geeks call "neutered" shields. I just was wondering if there is any certain guidebook on Wikipedia, to deal with the "Jct State=MO" type commands? Also is there a formal review process before I can just go ahead and change the linkage to the articles? But anyway, the state-name Interstate shields on Missouri Interstate Highways articles can definitely go away now. Just let me know what next steps are. Thanx again. Brycecordry (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Brycecordry: I've changed the appropriate subtemplate so that {{infobox road}} now uses neutered shields. {{jct}} was already using them because the state name is illegible at that size. Imzadi 1979 → 04:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You. Brycecordry (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

My edits

Why have you reverted them, it's not like I'm one of those immature people without accounts who add nonsense to pages. I was being good and adding on categories, could you please kindly explain what have I done wrong so that I don't repeat it?

P. S. They're not in my edits log anymore, they're below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.54.36.166

208.54.36.203 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Those categories didn't fit. The "Limited-access highways by country" category should contain subcategories like "Limited-access highways in the United States" or "Limited-access-highways in Canada", and within those categories you'd find the individual articles. The "Types of road systems" category is ill-conceived; the articles you were adding weren't about types of road systems, but rather were road systems. The distinction may be specific, but it is still appropriate to draw in both cases. Imzadi 1979 → 12:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about your edit against mine on US Route 224 at 18:35 on 4/17

Hi, I'm just learning how to edit in my spare time. For furthering my education, I was just curious as to why you said, "why is this section significant? raw traffic counts alone are meaningless without additional context."

In the same wiki page under the Indiana section there are traffic counts. The context was the source I provided, so I thought. How could that paragraph have been improved rather than taken away? Why did it lack context in that section?

How could I have better used my source to improve that page?

Thanks for sharing your expertise!

C2_J45driver16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by C2 J45driver16 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@C2 J45driver16: raw traffic counts are meaningless without context. Why were those counts chosen or inclusion in the article? What was significant about 1980? What is significant about that specific section of highway? In the circumstances where I've notated traffic counts, I've limited them to the highest and lowest counts statewide, or the highest/lowest along a freeway segment and the highest/lowest along the non-freeway segments of a single highway. I've also used more current measurements.

It's tricky when presenting data like this. We're not allowed to offer our own interpretations because that would be original research. Simply answering the question of "who uses the road?"is enough, but 30-year-old data for a single county doesn't answer that. Thus it's pointless for our purposes to use. Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by C2 J45driver16 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Michigan highways

Portal:Michigan highways, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/State-level road portals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Michigan highways during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

FAC review

Hi Imzadi1979! I was wondering if you could assist me in getting the MAX Red Line article reviewed and hopefully promoted to featured article status. While I understand your expertise is in American highways, I'm hoping an American light rail line is at least pretty close. In any case, I would be grateful for any feedback you can offer. I look forward to hearing from you! --Truflip99 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Truflip99! Unfortunately, I won't be able to provide a review for you. I have a personal policy against providing solicited reviews. As I note in the edit notice for my talk page, "[t]o maintain transparency, I will not perform an initial review at FAC, ACR or GAN if you ask me to do so here or via e-mail. I feel such a request makes any review that I perform tainted. However, if it is a renomination, and I have reviewed the article before, I will review the new nomination upon request." I wish you well on your nomination, Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to have inferred that you were a mentor. Cheers. --Truflip99 (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to provide advice and guidance, i.e. the role of a mentor, but my personal policy against specifically solicited reviewing still stands. Sorry for any confusion, Truflip99. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the guidelines and assumed the two were synonymous. If you wouldn't mind still taking the mentor route, I would be extremely grateful. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your G6 nominations

I have declined your recent run of WP:G6 nominations as they do not seem to be uncontroversial. You may want to consider Miscellany for deletion instead. In particular, the recent run of portal deletions that has spilled over onto ANI and elsewhere means I am very reluctant to consider unilaterally deleting any project page as it is likely to attract complaints. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 17

Hello Imzadi1979. You removed the WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) assessment from the talk page of this article, asserting that it was unnecessary since an article about the Georgia portion of this road exists. But, of course, that is a separate article, with its own focus. This particular article concerns a longer stretch of the road which, nonetheless, passes through Georgia and is unquestionably germane to WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state). A separate assessment from our Project is appropriate, unless you can show me something from the MoS, or some other authority within Wikipedia which says otherwise. Cheers Gulbenk (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: it's traditional that the state projects ignore the national-level U.S. Highway articles for assessment purposes if/once a state-specific sub article has been written. A quick survey will show that most of the national-level articles are not tagged for state projects except where there are no sub articles.

The national-level articles are going to be summaries of the state-specific ones per WP:SUMMARY, so there should be no additional information about the highway in Georgia contained in the national article, and most of the national article will not apply to the state. Imzadi 1979 → 01:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Imzadi1979. I have no doubt that your edit was in good faith, and that your only desire is to craft the best article. But in doing so, you dismiss the rightful place of a WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) to express an assessment of this article, which is wrong. I would direct you to WP:OWNERSHIP for a tutorial on this subject. Best Gulbenk (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What? All he's saying is that Talk:U.S. Route 17 in Georgia is where the WP:WPGEO tag should go. That's literally it. –Fredddie™ 02:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fredddie (nice name). U.S. Route 17 in Georgia certainly does fall within our project limits. But it is not the only road article which deals with sections of highway in Georgia. Since there is another article: U.S. Route 17 that too falls within our concern. BOTH are subjects in which WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) has a legitimate interest. One does nor exclude the other, as you seem to say. But if I am wrong, just point me to the Wikipedia authority, I'll certainly follow guidelines. Gulbenk (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no guideline but USRD has been doing it this way for over 10 years, so I guess precedent doesn't matter. Anyway, I put the tag back. –Fredddie™ 02:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Fredddie, for taking care of that. Doing something right, even after 10 years of doing it the other way, should be viewed as positive. Of course, the same logic applies to the other WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) deletions, so more work to be done. All the best Gulbenk (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: a little empirical data is in order. The following table lists all Interstate and U.S. Highways in Georgia. It also lists whether or not they're tagged for WP:WPGEO on the national-level or state-level article. Those listed as "N/A" in the state column lack a state-specific sub article, and any tagged with an asterisk (*) are those I untagged today.

Name	National tagged?	State tagged?
I-20	No	Yes
I-24	Yes	N/A
I-59	Yes	N/A
I-75	No	Yes
I-85	No	Yes
I-95	No	Yes
US 1	No	Yes
US 11	No	Yes
US 17	Yes*	Yes
US 19	No	Yes
US 23	No*	Yes
US 25	No	Yes
US 27	No	Yes
US 29	No*	Yes
US 41	No*	Yes
US 76	Yes	Yes
US 78	Yes	Yes
US 80	No	Yes
US 82	Yes*	Yes
US 84	No	Yes
US 123	No	N/A
US 129	No	Yes
US 221	No	Yes
US 270	Yes	N/A
US 278	No	Yes
US 280	Yes	N/A
US 301	No	Yes
US 319	Yes	N/A
US 341	No	N/A
US 378	No	N/A
US 441	No	Yes

There are 31 articles, and of those, 23 have both national and state articles. Before this evening, 15 of them were not tagged for WP:WPGEO on the national-level article. That's 65% of the articles untagged. Based on that, and the decade-old precedent, it should not be considered unreasonable for me to untag another 5 national-level articles tonight. Imzadi 1979 → 02:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for researching the subject. Very impressive and thorough. But, looking at your work, I would expect nothing less. I have been working hard to reduce the backlog at WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state). But as you correctly point out, there is still a great deal of work to do. But I'm at it every day, and recently our spheres of interest have intersected. I should point out that untagging would be a step backwards, and of course I would object. If you want to advance your point of view, you should request a formal addition (or revision) to the existing rules and guidelines. Simply doing it on your own, against the wishes of others, and claiming a personal precedent is not constructive, nor does it foster a collaborative effort across WikiProjects. If you honestly think you are in the right, let's take this up the line for a review and opinion.Gulbenk (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

From my experience in California, the state projects like to tag articles but don't actually do anything on the article itself. This applies somewhat to the state-detail articles but even more to the national articles. --Rschen7754 03:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a point well taken, which is why I have also tried to improve many of the articles I assess. Fortunately, most of the road articles look quite impressive, and don't require much improvement from me. Gulbenk (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: you seem to ascribe a personal motive to me that does not exist. This isn't an "Imzadi1979 precedent", rather it's just been the way things have been handled across the majority of U.S. highway articles nationally.

One thing to consider: most of the content in Interstate 95 is not about Georgia. It is our experience that within the national-level articles, that these are typically improved from the bottom up, not the top down. The way forward to improving that article will be to improve Interstate 95 in Florida, Interstate 95 in Georgia, Interstate 95 in South Carolina, etc., and then summarizing that improved and expanded content into the national article. So most of that improvement effort will be outside of the scope of WP:WPGEO. That's why we don't see state wikiprojects tagging the national-level articles. (Of course, if there isn't a state-level sub article to tag, that's a different story.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Georgia portion of Interstate 95 does look a bit light, and could (should) be expanded with greater detail. One of our Project members might find time to do that. It doesn't matter to me if that is top down or bottom up. And people who are not part of our Project, or your Project may wish to edit, as well. You should welcome that, since it is a core principal of Wikipedia. Things may have been handled differently for some time in the past... I would say (perhaps) as a result of neglect on the part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state). But I'm making an effort to correct that oversight. We have a right (I would say an obligation) to assess, and I would hope that you can accept that. Gulbenk (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So you think that all 15 of those states should have their WikiProject tags on that article? --Rschen7754 05:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the big thing, Gulbenk. In most cases, WP:WPGEO members could start taking an interest in the GA-specific sections of these national articles, improve them, and the article assessment will not change because the sections of those articles related to the other states will not change. As a Michigan resident, I can help improve U.S. Route 23 and Interstate 75 some because U.S. Route 23 in Michigan and Interstate 75 in Michigan are both FAs that I've written, but my abilities to help beyond basic copy editing end at the Ohio River. I don't have access to resources for Kentucky or Tennessee; even my resources for Ohio are limited. I've never driven on I-75 south of Dayton nor US 23 south of Columbus, and I don't have access to library materials outside of Michigan. Unless Georgia is substantially different, your fellow WP:WPGEO members will have a similar inability to assist too far afield. Any cross-collaboration on a specific national highway article will end up happening through USRD because that's the project that unites interested highway editors nationally. Even then, it's limited; our U.S. Route 66 task force's efforts are testament that the big national-level collaboration you'd think should happen just doesn't.

Additionally, as the most specific article on the subject, Interstate 75 in Georgia is the article that should be linked from Atlanta, not Interstate 75. I-75 in GA is the article that will be linked from the junction list of Georgia State Route 10, so WP:WPGEO really will get more bang from its buck to care about the state-level article.

Our experience has been that state project editors will tag highway articles and then neglect them en masse. We won't see any involvement in highway articles from outside of the USRD project until a USRD member improves them to GA or FA level, and then the state project will be happy to automatically include the article on a recognized content list. When state-detail articles are created and the state project tags are moved from the national-level to the state-level article, the state projects fail to notice and continue to neglect the new articles the same as before. Every few years, some editor, like yourself, feels like he or she needs to right great wrongs and start including more articles under a project's banner. Almost a decade ago, it was an editor who wanted to merge all of the state-level projects into WP:WikiProject United States and tag all 10K highway articles in the US under WP:WPUS. After a few years of neglect, the extra banners came off the talk pages and nary a yawn was shed. The driving force behind the improvement of highway articles continued to be USRD, not the state projects. The few more generalist editors who express an interest in working on highway articles in their state(s) usually join our project. Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So, I guess this will come as a shock to you, but USRD does not own these articles. If you do most of the work on them, as you have, you can be proud of that effort...but (driving force or no) you do not own the articles. USRD is just one of (in some cases) many who have an obligation to assess an article which impacts them. You seem to have a long-standing beef with state Projects, and I (and WikiProject Georgia (U.S, state)) have inadvertently found ourselves in the middle of that. I have no desire to dredge up your troubling childhood memories, I only have admiration for your work. But I will insist on the right to assess every article which has relevance to my Project, and will press the matter if it comes to that. Gulbenk (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: all I can say, yes, you can assess them, but that comes with the responsibility to actually do something with the articles. History bears out that nothing will change after the addition of a superfluous tag. Meanwhile, I'm not the only editor removing state-level tags; Morriswa, a Georgia resident and highway editor, has just re-removed the tag from Talk:U.S. Route 82 in this edit, so even residents of the Peach State disagree. Imzadi 1979 → 19:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. her talk page is here. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't believe there's been all this hand-wringing over this, while meanwhile, there's nothing in U.S. Route 17 that says why it's notable, nor are there any citations to any reliable sources. It's a miracle it hasn't been AfDed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you know where I can find the Michigan maps from 1970-1973? I can only view 1969 and 1974.

I need some maps for the West Branch area around 1970 to 1973 when the M-76 freeway was built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.235.146 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Various libraries contain paper copies of the specific years of the maps. The Library of Michigan, for instance, has a complete set of the maps for those years. That's where I got my scanned copies initially. I've since purchased physical copies on eBay. The Archives of Michigan is slowly scanning maps and putting them online, and I've been adding those links to our citation template, {{cite MDOT map}} as I find them so that the links will appear in the articles.

A little secret: {{cite MDOT map/testcases}} lists every map we know to exist currently that is included in {{cite MDOT map}} for easy citation purposes. If you look on any of the citations, there is a list of OCLC numbers with links at the end. The links will take you to a record on www.worldcat.org. From there, you can search for libraries containing that map. Additionally, you can try searching for those OCLC numbers at MeLCat, the catalog of the Michigan eLibrary because not all of Michigan's libraries are linked into WorldCat. Some OCLC numbers link to a range of map years because some libraries catalog them as annual editions in a series, and others catalog them individually.

The 1970 through 1973 maps are listed under OCLC 12701120. The 1971 map is also listed under OCLC 77960415, and the 1973 is also listed under OCLC 81679137. Imzadi 1979 → 04:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:HW-table/WithCollapsibles]

Hey, seeing as how you lately nominated some road-related templates, you might be the one that can help with this. I've came accross Template:HW-table/WithCollapsibles which has 8 transclusions - 7 of them have messed up layout because of the collapsible toggle. Is this really the standard template the project uses for this or is this some old code that should be replaced with something else? --Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: that appears to be old code, and it should be replaced at some point. In many cases, highway articles on the English Wikipedia for the non-English-speaking world look like articles on non-English editions of Wikipedia because templates or formatting practices were copied over. That's why the junction list on a French autoroute article looks similar to the same article on the French Wikipedia. There's a lot of work to harmonize those articles to the English Wikipedia styles and formats, and that work just doesn't get done. Imzadi 1979 → 14:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gonnym: in some cases, take the German Wikipedia's version of Infobox road for example, we've "translated" the template so when it's pasted here on the English Wikipedia, it outputs Infobox road with everything laid out as it should be here. Then all we have to do is substitute it. –Fredddie™ 18:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any template I can look at so I can (try to) fix these 8 pages? --Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The best bet would be to look at the railroad routing templates for something similar since that's what this is based off of. A few years ago, I tried to create something like this and while it looked cool, it was unwieldy for roads purposes. –Fredddie™ 19:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for M-343 (Michigan highway)

On 30 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article M-343 (Michigan highway), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Michigan state highway M-343 between Kalamazoo and Richland was part of the M-43 highway for a century until Kalamazoo wanted to assert control over several streets in the city's downtown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/M-343 (Michigan highway). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, M-343 (Michigan highway)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Why can't you add more than 10 junctions on a road article?

99721829Max (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@99721829Max: if you mean in the infobox, there is no technical limit, but there is a practical one. If you mean in the junction list/exit list table, there is no limit, and many articles have many more than 10 listed.

Back in the early days of our work creating articles, we didn't have any limits on how many junctions we'd list. As a result, some infoboxes were quite long, and when one article was being reviewed for Featured Article status, it was strongly suggested that the junction list within in the infobox be shortened. From that discussion, we've implemented the standard. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, and guess what, I am a roadgeek and a racing fan. My favorite roads are Interstate 80 and U.S. 101. My favorite NASCAR drivers are Chase Elliott, William Byron, Jimmie Johnson, and Alex Bowman. My favorite IndyCar driver is Max Chilton. 99721829Max (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And also, I put the part "in California" because I live in Sacramento. 99721829Max (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

According to the edit summary, how was that rude?

I am a nice Wikipedian, so I am not trying to be rude to you or other Wikipedians. 99721829Max (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@99721829Max: I didn't say you were rude. I said that it is considered rude to remove content from another user's talk page. It's usually a good idea to let each user decide when and how to archive content from his or her talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Interstate 10 in Texas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pinehurst, Texas and Sabine River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Interstate (in states) reverts

Why did you revert my map edits on these 3?

• Interstate 70 in Colorado
• Interstate 70 in Utah
• Interstate 80 in Iowa

Did the map not display for you at all? It did for me. If you did not like the new zoom only, we can keep the old one but still use Wikidata as source for map data.--Kozuch (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The existing KML-based GeoJSON maps were sufficient, and properly zoomed. I don't know the provenance of the data you were using, and with Featured Articles, it's important to edit somewhat conservatively at times. Imzadi 1979 → 22:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I-10 in Arizona issues

I did my best to tell the anonymous user making the edits to the Interstate 10 in Arizona article to provide adequate sourcing and to stop removing the Pearl Harbor Memorial Highway name from the Infobox. I apologize if the way I went about correcting the grammar and sourcing for his information was incorrect, but I wanted to stop him from trying to begin an edit war and causing issues with the article's accuracy. He replied to you pasting the URL he used as his sourcing in the changes comment section, which does not count as providing a verifiable source. I went in and used Provelt to turn the URL into a true citation. It looks like he's also making edits to the I-40 article as well. Just thought I'd let you know what's going on. Hopefully he will not remove the Pearl Harbor name again and use correct methods for editing next time. -- -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 18:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Motorway sign

fyi, see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't that one of the templates we made call the full graphics instead of the individual pieces? –Fredddie™ 15:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fredddie: yes it is. Imzadi 1979 → 17:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yooper / Rush Street, Chicago

My family goes back to the UP since the 1880s. I we seem to share an interest in the Rush Street area of Chicago.i have a 50 year relationship with the area, and my research goes back to the 1800s. Please feel free to contact me regarding your research in the area. David Floodstrand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.173.5 (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@107.77.173.5: I have no research into that area. The article only came to my attention when it was nominated for Featured Article status and I reviewed it. That's it. Imzadi 1979 → 18:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on List of highways in Puerto Rico?

In the US, we use mdy dates and English units and even on speed limit signs, they use miles per hour. 99721829Max (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico uses kilometers on their signs. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thank you for letting me know. 99721829Max (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic City-Brigantine Connector

Thanks for your recent edits to Atlantic City-Brigantine Connector. I started expanding the article 10-12 years ago, but haven't done much work on it since. I'd really like to see it get to FA and I don't think it would require that much more expansion. Would you be interested in working on it with me to get it to pass an FA review? –Dream out loud (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dream out loud: I can help you with polishing. Aside from researching and writing my own stuff, I seem to be pretty decent at polishing citations, helping with copy editing and the like. The article seems to be in decent shape now, so I'll defer to you on the topic of expansion/research. Imzadi 1979 → 14:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

County designated highways in Michigan

Have we ever reached a consensus on how to indicate the "unofficial" F-xx county highways in Ogemaw County? They are indicated on Google Maps albeit without the "F", and at least some of them are still signed in the field. I'm sure I can find a decent map somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

MDOT doesn't include them on their maps, so I'm not including them on the list. Imzadi 1979 → 03:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 131

Looks like Chaswmsday (talk · contribs) has been unnecessarily re-adding exit types to U.S. Route 131. I fixed this again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: please see WT:RJL. I agree that they're not needed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Schoenherr Road

Do you think Schoenherr Road should go to AFD? It's been unsourced since 2008 and has had almost no changes to it whatsoever. I'd do it myself but I'm still topic banned from initiating XFDs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I passed.

Hello Imzadi,

Thank you for all your constructive criticism on my Interstate 91 article a few months back. I addressed it all and am proud to say that it has passed as a good article. Thank you for your support and guidance. See you around. (Maybe FA in the future)... AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: you're welcome. Imzadi 1979 → 23:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

MDOT Region Map Coloring

I noticed that you provided the coloring for the MDOT Region map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_Transportation#/media/File:Michigan_DOT_Regions.svg Since 2016, the Department has new Region boundaries, with every Region changing boundaries, except Superior Region. Here is a link to the new Regions: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9623-36042--,00.html Mrhercli89 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

M-76 freeway and map updates

From what I found, the M-76 freeway from Standish to Alger opened in 1968 (preset day exits 188 to 202). The 1969 map shows this. Then the freeway from Alger to Cook Road in West Branch (preset day exit 212) opened in 1970, along with the freeway from preset day exit 244 to preset day exit 249. If the bypass of West Branch (from exit 212 to 215) didn't open in 1971, did it open in 1972? I can't seem to find the 1972 map on eBay. The 1971 map shows the freeway stopping at Cook Road, and the 244 to 249 segment. The 1970 map is also impossible to find, at least the official MDOT publication.

Is there any proof that the freeway was actually signed as M-76 with highway shields between 1968 and 1973? Or were I-75 shields installed. It would be really important if any photos were taken of the signs during the time to see if it was actually M-76 or I-75, or both. I found some old title plans from MDOT from 1969 and it shows I-75, not M-76. I can upload it as a PDF file.

I have the official 1973 map (you can see it below) and it shows the M-76 freeway terminating at preset day 215, and then the segment of freeway from preset day exit 239 to 249 (US-27). So the freeway opened from West Branch to Roscommon in 1973, not from Alger.

Also the "Seeking Michigan" website now appears to have the maps from 1973-1979, and from 1982-1992 digitally saved, you should add them to Wikipedia so they are easy to find, like the 1969 and 1974 maps. I also might have a map from 1993-2002 somewhere, If I have it I can scan it so it can be added here.

1973: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6016/rec/1

1975: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6125/rec/15

1976-77: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6111/rec/47

1978-79: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6246/rec/15

1982: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6364/rec/161

1983: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6391/rec/4

1984: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6392/rec/6

1985: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6385/rec/13

1986: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6387/rec/74

1987: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6524/rec/3

1988: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6525/rec/10

1989: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6541/rec/3

1990: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6536/rec/1

1991: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6576/rec/1

1992: http://seekingmichigan.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p129401coll3/id/6570/rec/1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.235.146 (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those map links. Based on theRG 89-11 link at the bottom of them, I found several more in addition to those listed above that they've added since my last peek at the website, and I've added those links to {{cite MDOT map}}. (Take a look at {{cite MDOT map/testcases}} to see all of the various editions of the official state maps in the template, and which ones are currently linked.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert of Interchange name

Hey there Imzadi1979, I noticed that you reverted my edit of adding the Mike Ellis Memorial Interchange to the I 41, US 41, US 10, and WIS 441. I just wanted to explain why I think this is okay to have on Wikipedia and why I reverted your reverts.

This interchange was named via a law passed in the Wisconsin legislative branch and signed by the Wisconsin Governor. There are also signs on all 4 sides of the interchange which show the interchange name. I see on the US 41 and I 41 articles it names all the named interchanges in the Milwaukee area but a lot of those names are simply nicknames and aren't officiated by the WIS DOT or the Wisconsin government. I have driven through the Milwaukee area multiple times this year alone and have not yet seen any signs naming the interchanges.

Maybe you disagree with me but I feel that these 2 facts give the Ellis Interchange more notability to be listed with-in these exit tables than the Milwaukee area interchanges.

I hope you have an good day and weekend, --198.150.183.44 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. First off, any official status like that doesn't actually matter because unlike the Hale, Marquette, Mitchell and Zoo interchanges, the name of this interchange isn't in common usage. In many cases, we actually defer to a common name and downplay official names. Additionally, unlike those four interchanges, this interchange doesn't have its own article. We typically ignore memorial interchange names, but where the public and press consistently has applied a name to an interchange, we don't ignore those names. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and sorry for any frustrations I may have caused you. I am now abandoning my intentions to add this; after doing some further research I understand why this interchange shouldn't be in the table.

Have a happy labor day next week. 198.150.183.44 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Minor script adjustment needed for dead-url parameters?

This edit resulted in a new error. Please check your script/code, unless it was just a slip of the finger. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

U.S. 10/ND Navbox

Hey there. E-mailed you regarding my misunderstanding about the ND navbox on US 10. Apologies for that edit and would love to help improve the UX around that. Thanks for all you do! David Millar (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davmillar: long term, a separate U.S. Route 10 in North Dakota article should be created, and once done, the browser would for that would appear at the bottom of the infobox and be removed from U.S. Route 10. Even so, there's nothing wrong or non-standard about the presentation of the current browser there at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: I see your point about it not defying standard, but I really think you underestimate how misleading it appears to average users without additional context. For example, the North Dakota trunk route pages provide links alluding to it being an amalgamation of U.S. routes, Interstate, and state trunk routes, which I think makes it look less suspicious in the absence of similar navigation for other states.

Last edit to Module:Road data/strings/USA/GA

I saw that you edited the Module:Road data/strings/USA/GA page. What did that last edit actually do? Did it allow you to do the other edit on Interstate 75 in Georgia? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Morriswa: we added a new type of roadway to the modules back as part of the changes to {{jct}}. The road type code allows us to display a road name that isn't a numbered highway. In the past, you'd have to use |road= to include the name of a road at the end, but with this new type code, a road name can appear in any position, allowing the template to correctly to a "Foo Road to SR 1" style construction.

So in short, I added a missing new type to the Georgia module so that I could make that edit to the I-75 article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but the shield(s) still appears at the beginning of the entry. Is that supposed to be that way? Or should they be right before their link(s)? The latter makes more sense to me. The former makes it seem that the numbered highway(s) is actually signed, and not a "To" entry(ies). Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:RJL, the marker graphics are supposed to appear at the start of the line, not in the middle of it. That follows from the concept in other parts of the MOS that graphics aren't supposed to interrupt text. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Coding

Nice catch, that nbsp in the first line of a paragraph! [paragraph] If you object to my version of Oak Park (all not-for-the-public kidding aside) please say so.--Brogo13 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC) [So...] --Brogo13 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC) So. --Brogo13 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Japan National Route 280

Hello, I recently reworked Japan National Route 280 to get it featured in today's DYK. I was wondering if it could be reassessed and if you have any tips as to what I could do to improve it further to an A class article or beyond? Mccunicano 08:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I-40

This is a second request that you link the policy (or even the guideline) stating that "one per state is standard". Note that your self-ordained policies are not equivalent to Wikipedia policies. Please edit collaboratively rather than hiding behind false accusations about adding a second per state as a protest. Thanks. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

See just about any other national article on an Interstate or U.S. Highway (assuming there are state-level sub articles). They typically have just one photo per state subsection. Not two per state, and they don't skip states. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying there is no policy or written guideline about the number of images per state? You should be able to answer that with a "yes" or a "no". If the answer is "yes", please provide a link. Second point: you're wrong about the number of images in other interstate articles (although that's really a moot point with no policy or guideline; it's your personal standard). I randomly selected ten articles about interstate highways. The range was zero to four images per state. If you don't believe that, then the burden is on you to get that information yourself since you are demanding that others' conform to your personal requirements and you misstated the information in other articles. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a personal standard, it's just not written down. Not every rule needs to be written down. And yes, too many pictures creates clutter. –Fredddie™ 01:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fredddie: But fewer than one image per state is not clutter. Imzadi1979 has reverted both addition and removal of images, claiming that "one per state is standard". The truth, however, is that there are many more exceptions to "one per state is standard" than there are articles that actually conform to that standard. When a policy or guideline is "not written down" and there is no basis in reality to a self-created "standard", then yes, that is a personal standard. If Imzadi1979 wants to force his/her personal standard into articles for which he assumes ownership, he/she needs to get consensus instead of demanding that others blindly fall into line with his/her personal standard. That's how thing work on Wikipedia. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell Imzadi1979 and myself how Wikipedia works. We've both been around for 14 years. We've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of this place. The best thing to do is to work out this silly disagreement like adults. But you have to be willing first. Claiming that every little detail needs to be supported by policy or guidelines and then arguing ownership when you don't get what you want is not helpful. –Fredddie™ 20:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fredddie: And don't assume an IP knows nothing about how Wikipedia works. I've been around as long as you have, but years of "being around" does not qualify me or you to claim policies or guidelines that don't exist without a shred of evidence about a "standard" of "one photo per state". Instead of defensively pouting about how long you've been here, please justify your claim of the article standard of one photo per state. Otherwise the reverting of edits that violate that false standard is entirely inappropriate. If there are future such reverts, we can either discuss it here or at WP:ANI. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. –Fredddie™ 23:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

List of temporary Interstate Highways

The article List of temporary Interstate Highways has been unsourced since creation in 2005 and hasn't gotten an iota of TLC. Some of these are so short-lived that they probably didn't even appear on any maps. What should be done with this list? Does anyone want to clean it up? Should it be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

List of temporary Interstate Highways

Do you have a suggestion for List of temporary Interstate Highways? I think most of these fail the verifiability test, and a search for "temporary [insert name of highway here]" returns only things like forum posts on aaroads.com or fansites. The list has been around since 2005 and hasn't changed one bit. Would you consider it a viable AFD target? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

red link error in Anatomy of a Murder

Italic or bold markup not allowedVmavanti (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my edit. I'm curious. Why was your first thought that I didn't know what I was doing? All you had to do was look at the red link error message in the reference section, click on help, which takes you to the explanation linked above. I mean this literally, not rhetorically, not in any sarcastic or mean way. Why did you assume I was wrong without bothering to check the documentation first or the error message?
–Vmavanti (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

So can you check my recent posts on I-87 or I-275

I just need someone to respond to my posts can anyone please do that. Also, can you make the Adirondack Northway separate from I-87? Also do you edit New York articles, as I am from Nassau County, NY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Imzadi1979. I'm just posting to let you know that List of U.S. Highways in Michigan – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 25. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Help me, please!

Please edit U.S. Route 30 in Oregon please! The major intersections table is broken, please help me on that. Thank you. NASCARfan0548 (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@NASCARfan0548: I fixed the table, however the intersection with I-205 at MP 103.83 may need to have its location set. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally north-to-south roads are odd with the lowest in the WEST not East! and highest in the EAST not west.

MICHAEL C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.147.47 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@68.199.147.47: Do you have a specific example in mind? It really depends on the system, because that rule doesn't always hold true. In terms of the Interstate Highway System, yes, the lowest odd numbers, like I-5, are in the west; that highway runs along the West Coast, while I-95 is on the East Coast. In terms of the United States Numbered Highway System, however, US 1 is on the East Coast and US 101 is on the West Coast. Of course, this presupposes a grid numbering scheme, which may or may not exist in other systems. Imzadi 1979 → 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please teach me how to use wikipedia. I can't seem to edit the table in visual mode. please help me.

Hey! I am the person who edited the I-10 Article in Arizona to add the new interchanges. i know i didn't do it right, but i can't seem to open the table and use it right in Visual Mode — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doverdoebo (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doverdoebo: those exit list tables are built row by row by a series of templates. Imzadi 1979 → 23:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Importing short descriptions

I just finished importing short descriptions for every highway in California. I'm proud of that! NASCARfan0548 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@NASCARfan0548: that's good, but they really need some proofreading. "Interstate Highway" should have both words capitalized (proper name for a type of highway vs. common name for a highway that crosses state lines), for example. Imzadi 1979 → 16:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

NY 28

I may have worded it wrong... but NY 80 overlaps NY 28 from in Cooperstown to 5 MILES west of Cooperstown. So althought it is correct that it intersects in cooperstown it also intersects NY 80 near Oaksville and should be shown as so in the major intersections section. The way that you changed it to suggests that it only crosses NY 80 but is not overlapped. There is a precedent of doing this in many highway articles 420Traveler (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@420Traveler: it still intersects it at each end, and it's not necessary to list every intersection in the infobox as that is just a summary of the junction list table. The article is a Featured Article, so some care should be in order to maintain that high level of quality in any changes that are made. Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Also the suffixed routes section should be moved to under the major intersections section as to not disrupt the flow of the main article. 420Traveler (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: ok kinda makes sense but will confuse many people... but remember what I said about the suffixed routes section, because like u coreected me on K-19 (Kansas highway), and you said "It's better to put related routes at the end to avoid interrupting the flow of content on the main highway" 420Traveler (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@420Traveler: look, and you'll see that I already made that suggested change. Imzadi 1979 → 05:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Mississippi Highway 584

Could you please help me improve this article I just created this morning? Thank you. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

First thing first, NASCARfan0548, but you have no content there except and infobox and a single sentence. As of this moment, I could nominate the article for deletion, and it would be rapidly discarded. You really need to start with the basics if you're going to create a new article: write some content and add some basic sources. Take a look at other highway articles and get a feel for the typical content. Then start with a route description section. Write some content about where the highway goes. Then the other easy initial section is to add the junction list table. If you can't do that, then maybe you shouldn't be starting new highway articles just yet. Imzadi 1979 → 00:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Secondly, please attempt to get your facts straight. MS 584 isn't 76 miles long and you had the endpoints backwards. You've been around for a few months now; long enough that I can't forgive these as simple mistakes. They were blatant errors. –Fredddie™ 01:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Fredddie, I want to become Wikipedia friends with you. Is that OK? We love roads, so it makes sense, and you too, Imzadi1979. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 16:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Need help with exit list formatting

I wonder if you could help me with formatting an exit table foe Highway 401. I'm trying to insert service centre locations, but with single-collumn independent cities, I can't get the "place" row format to work properly. It won't partially fill the row properly and jumps down to the next line (throwing the appearance out of whack) unless I span the entire row. Also, when it does work (only with both county-and-city locations), sometime the location article links break. Thanks Transportfan70 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Thank you, Atsme. Here's hoping that you have a joyous holiday season yourself! Imzadi 1979 → 00:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A Joyous Yuletide to you!

Christmas card by Louis Prang, showing a group of anthropomorphized frogs parading with banner and band. Carole of the Bells by Pentatonix Hello Imzadi1979, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Route 6

It's a proper name even when used generically, without a number? Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: the full name of the network is the "United States Numbered Highway System". Individual components thereof would be "United States Numbered Highways", or "U.S. Highways". "U.S. highway" is ambiguous in this context as that could refer to any highway in the United States, not just highways in a specific system. It's analogous to the ambiguity with another network, that of the Interstates: Interstate 696 is an "Interstate Highway" (part of that specific network), but not an "interstate highway" (it doesn't cross state lines at all). The "numbered U.S. highway" (shifting word order and dropping capitalization) is also ambiguous with any highway bearing a number (thus excluding Missouri's lettered routes or Wisconsin's lettered county highways) over the specific case in play at that article. Imzadi 1979 → 03:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 2020

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Imzadi1979,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– – HighwayTyper (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did you put an unecessary post on my talk page?

I puta separate article if I want. If it is not allowed, you can tell me this, else, stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spg1059-a6s (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Spg1059-a6s: that posting on your talk page is part of the Articles for Creation (AfC) review script. When I commented on the draft that you created, the script also posted on your talk page to alert you to the fact that you have comments on your draft. It is considered proper etiquette around here to alert other editors to comments and discussions that concern them. Imzadi 1979 → 16:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

RJL Tags

Hi-

Just so you know, I placed the MOS:RJL tags on those roadway pages because there has been edit warring/vandalizing going on and I wanted to alert lead editors of the Wikipedia US Roads project. I have no idea who is right and what belongs/doesn't belong, I just thought the pages should be monitored. I will not be putting them back in on the 5 pages you removed them from. Thanks.108.21.182.146 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as an update, I was making edits from an IP address (108.21.182.146) and have now created this account. I will no longer be making any edits from that IP account. Please ping or tag me in any response. Thanks.FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@FlaviusFunderburke: I looked at the articles, and nothing jumped out as violating MOS:RJL though. They all use the templates, and they don't seem to be misformatting things. (I did convert a few {{jct}} templates in the notes column of the one article into links because MOS:RJL says not to use the marker graphics outside of the destinations column.) So on that score, they don't need attention to comply with MOS:RJL, which is the point of that tag in the banner. Imzadi 1979 → 23:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would only suggest you keep the articles on a watchlist in the event edit warring or vandalism gets out of hand. Thanks again.FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I-96/I-69

Please don't just revert without an explanation. I've now left an explanation in the edit summary of why my changes should remain. 2601:187:4581:7F50:5C0:4256:7AD7:5381 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Exit list templates

I didn't realize the concept had already been shut down, so I appreciate your feedback. What is the downside for templates holding static article content? — C16SH (speak up) 20:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It makes it hard for readers to edit the content. You have a reader who finds an error in the exit list on Connecticut Turnpike. That person clicks the [edit] link on the Exit list heading and looks for the desired content. Guess what, that reader can't find it. Now established editors should see {{Connecticut Turnpike I-95 exits}} and figure out to go there to make the change, but we assume a level of competency in that presumption.

This is all summarized at WP:TG: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to 'collapse' or 'hide' content from the reader." Imzadi 1979 → 20:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I get that. To me it seems redundant to maintain two nearly identical lists on separate pages, but I'll digress as well. — C16SH (speak up) 21:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for talk page stalking, but why should exit lists be available for editing in the first place? To me, its an established, concrete reference to something, similar to the periodic table of elements in a way. I can't go to the Periodic Table and start renaming compounds or moving them around on a list. Same should be on an exit list. An exit is what the exit sign says it is (number and route), and the routes there are the routes. A Notes section can be used to list something that's more unique to that exit (such as left hand exit, or specific directional route accessible from that exit (ex. southbound only, etc...). It doesn't seem like something that should be up for debate. Anyways, just my two cents, and depending on the exchange rate, may be worth less than that. Thanks. FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@FlaviusFunderburke: except for a few cases, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". This is why even the article chosen as "Today's Featured Article" is still normally open to regular editing, even after all of the reviews that happened to promote that article to Featured status so that it could be run on the Main Page. Now there are reasons that we will apply some level of protection to some articles, but unless those needs arise, the full content of an article is supposed to be open to editing, per our foundational credo.

Even if the exit lists were left in separate templates, they'd still be editable. The process to get to the location of that content is somewhat obscured. It's that obfuscation that's the issue, so we don't use templates to hold article content. Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979:I understand that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia than anyone can edit, and that's appropriate in almost all articles. But to apply that standard to roadway articles, history, design, route description, and introductory materials should always be editable in order to put the purpose of wikipedia into practice. But something like an exit list should be treated like the periodic table page--the table itself is indefinitely blocked from further editing. I'd argue it should be the exception, not the rule. For example, the last exit on I95 in NY westbound it exit 1 Henry Hudson Parkway/West 181st St." Why should someone be able to add "Downtown" to the exit description when a) that's not necessarily true and b) not on the relevant signage? That exit is what that exit is, no more, no less, and until it changes, I don't see how the purpose of wikipedia is helped by allowing edits to that. Edits to the route description or history or other elements of the page should be fair game, but not the exit list. If anything, it feeds the perception that wikipedia is less than reliable because of the free ability to edit. Until such time that exits on, say, I95 in new york, change, that should, in my opinion be the case. TL:DR- paragraphs and prose in wikipedia articles should almost always be freely available to edit, but nothing good comes from editing something objective and clear like the exit list on, say, the I95 in NY page. Anyways, thanks for indulging me. FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@FlaviusFunderburke: there's been some back and forth over the years about the specific content of exit lists, so it isn't as cut and dried as you think it is, even if we pretty much settled on regurgitating the signage in our house style. Also, unlike the periodic table, there really aren't any external sources who publish tables the same way we do; we can't just point to the information and basic presentation from multiple third-party publications to say "there lies truth". Additionally, highway signage changes more frequently than the details of the periodic table, and locking down all of the tables would make updates arduous, or potentially impossible. Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: I would respectfully request that issue be reconsidered. At least for exits on major roadways (exists on I95 in New York aren't changing anytime soon). For a situation like highway signage, I feel like we can point to the actual roadway signs and say "there lies truth" and provide necessary additional information (left hand exit, etc...) relevant to that exit. I don't think knowing hospitals/stadiums/office parks need to be in the notes section, and noone should be able to put that in. My example of the exit 1 I mentioned above is a great example, because on further consideration, the additional information (the "downtown" is simply wrong info--181st street runs east/west, and both uptown and downtown are equally accessible). Remember, as a newbie, I have additional insight--what people on here think wikipedia is and what the rest of the public thinks wikipedia is are very different. One thing that should be the goal is accuracy, especially when its objective, quantifiable, and real. Thanks. FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@FlaviusFunderburke: locking content under protection is basically antithetical to how Wikipedia functions. Yes, there are cases where it is necessary, but this is not one. If you find errors on exit lists, please fix them. We practice a mantra that "many eyes make all bugs shallow". Imzadi 1979 → 18:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Portal talk:Michigan highways#Portal updates and additions

 You are invited to join the discussion at Portal talk:Michigan highways#Portal updates and additions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Did it display badly?

Hi, I noticed you removed the image of michigan and wisconsin territory. This was my first-ever time using the image frame template. I am wondering if it it displayed incorrectly to you or if you removed it for other reasons.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: the template worked to crop the specific portion of the map, but the full map was still showing, and the formatting was all wonky. I removed the full map and shifted the caption down to the inset/crop from it to simplify everything. Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that was me that did that, because I wanted both the cropped and full map. My purpose was to make it obvious that the cropped map was from Michigan territory days. I was especially uncertain whether the text would display correctly. I am not displeased with your fixing of it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 675 (Michigan)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 7, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 7, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I-295

Any help creating the Wikipedia pages of I-295 in 3 states now that I am autoconfirmed, 5 days old with 50+ edits Gale5050 (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gale5050: your new account does not change anything. If you're talking about Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania), there is still no need to split that into three separate articles (really four since we'd still need one summary article for the full length). Talk:Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania)#Why not just have new pages for all 3 sections has the details. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Oregon 971

"Comment: '971' is an area code in northwest Oregon. I find no reference to it as a proposed highway in the state. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)"

Oregon State can make it however they want. I find this as an unnecessary comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spg1059-a6s (talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Spg1059-a6s: please provide a source that such a highway has been officially proposed. Otherwise, the comment stands that there is no proposal to use "971" as a highway designation in Oregon, and the only connection with the number to the state is as an area code. Imzadi 1979 → 23:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Spg1059-a6s: Please respond to Imzadi's query, or Draft:Oregon 971 will probably be deleted. J947 ^(c), at 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Spg1059-a6s (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we settle this?

You are now allowed to pass the badges subproject I made. Spg1059-a6s (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

your work is noticed and appreciated

A fellow Michigander (troll, though) who's finally figured out why we have so many highways in the featured articles!

Thank you for your work.

SkyeBirds (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@SkyeBirds: thank you for the appreciation! Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Interstate 675 (Michigan), one of "a cluster of the highest numbered highways in Michigan"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Standard for major intersections list

Hi Imzadi1979! I would like you to help me with a doubt I have. For the past several months I've created many major intersection lists for Puerto Rico highway articles, but I don't know if the order to follow should always be west-east / south-north or if it should always start with km 0. Currently I've created some hatnotes that indicate when a road begins in the opposite direction to start the list from km 0, although that doesn't always coincide with the infobox road. I don't know if I should leave the lists as they are or if, instead, I should change the order of all the information. TC! Yamil Rivera (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two options here.

1. Always start with the 0.0 point as the first entry in the table.
2. Always start with the west or south terminus as the first entry in the table.

For most of the highways in the US, these options are equivalent because the 0.0 point is the west/south terminus of the highway. That's really the reason we picked the west-to-east and south-to-north directions.

For those that "run backwards", you could pick either option. Either you're always going west-to-east or south-to-north and the mileposts run in decreasing order on some highways, or you're always going in increasing milepost order and some highways run geographically backwards.

Off the top of my head, I remember some highways in Texas that are "backwards", and they were set up in increasing milepost order. See also M-168 and Talk:M-168 (Michigan highway). That's also why we set up circular-highways like M-185 or Interstate 275 as we do: to follow the increasing mileposts. I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 20:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That's great! Two years ago I changed the order in the infobox road to fit the standard. For that reason the question arose with the list. I think I prefer to leave things as they are. Thank you! Yamil Rivera (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Three-digit interstates start with mile 0 at the parent road regardless of direction, but I think in those cases we still write the list west to east or south to north. –Fredddie™ 18:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they don't necessarily. I-196's mileposts start at I-94 in the south, not at I-96 in the north. Imzadi 1979 → 18:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! I've been looking at different lists in different states to standardize the information on the lists I've been making, and another questions have arisen. The first is about the boundaries between counties and cities, and the second is about the order of route numbers and road networks. In Puerto Rico it's very common that at highway intersections there're also limits between locations (barrios) and even municipalities. To give you a better understanding, the intersection between PR-101 and PR-103 remains at the tripoint of Llanos Costa (to the south), Boquerón (to the northwest) and Llanos Tuna (to the northeast) in Cabo Rojo municipality, but PR-103 is mainly between Llanos Tuna and Boquerón. Are the three places to be identified, or only the two where PR-103 is located?

The second point that I would like to share with you is the order of route numbers and road networks. PR-146 ends at the junction of PR-149 with PR-145 in Ciales municipality, where PR-149 is the main route with respect to the other two. Also, PR-119 intersects with tertiary PR-105 and secondary PR-357 in Mayagüez municipality, very close to the Maricao municipal limit. Which order should prevail for each case? I'll appreciate the help you can give me. Yamil Rivera (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yarfpr: I would list all of the locations. For an extreme, look at M-82 and M-120 for an intersection that is at a township quadripoint that is a county tripoint. All four townships are listed and all three counties are as well. We tend to think of the locations present at within the footprint of the intersection/interchange, and not the ones present only on the cross road. (You also might like to look at US 127, which runs along a county line for its southernmost portion in the state.)

For the second question, the normal practice is that highways are listed in priority order. The MUTCD prescribes that order as Interstates first, US Highways second, state highways third, county roads fourth. To settle a tie in priority, normally lower numbers are listed first within the same type. We've expanded on that guidance that primary state highways get listed before secondary highways. In any case, exceptions apply (It's US 127/US 10 and I-96/I-69 for historical reasons, even though that puts the higher number first in both situations.) Imzadi 1979 → 02:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I love those examples you shared! In the case of Puerto Rico, it's not completely clear to me the order to follow because all the roads are state type and are subdivided into 4 networks that are identified as PR-X, not as Pri-X, Urban-X, Sec-X or Ter-X. In that sense, perhaps the numerical order could be more convenient than the importance level of the network. Thank you so much for help me! Yamil Rivera (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

On Special:Diff/947541223 at Talk:E 30 road (United Arab Emirates)

Hi, I am wondering why did you remove the "WikiProject Articles for Creation" talk page banner. I believe that keeping the banner there is useful and beneficial as 1) it allows one to keep track of the categories "XXX-class AfC articles" for tracking and 2) it lets users know that this came from a draft. Could you please kindly explain your removal? Thanks from TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 06:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: in adding the missing assessment for the Highways project, yes, I removed the AfC banner. The article had been optimistically mis-assessed as Start-Class, when it's Stub-Class. However, it's also my understanding that AfC banners shouldn't have their assessment changed as a matter of historical record. (It was assessed as Start when it was approved, but it isn't assessed as such anymore.) So we have conflicting assessments, which messes up the assessment display on the article itself for those of us who use the Wikipedia:Metadata gadget, which will display the highest assessment (which would have been Start-Class from AfC) over any other assessments (the Stub-Class from the projects that would actually maintain the article). Lastly, the AfC project doesn't actually maintain articles after the drafts have been approved, so it doesn't help readers needing assistance with an article to point them to a project that doesn't maintain it. To that point, the AfC project should really be adding something to {{Article History}} as a part of the record of events to an article akin to reviews at Peer Review, GAN or FAC.

As to the point of "let[ting] users know that this came from a draft", the article history already does that]. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, I agree that the article would probably be Stub-class (for now), so even I was a bit surprised at the Start-class rating. Nevertheless, in my opinion ratings on AFC can actually be changed. Consider the article Spider-Man (2018 video game). It's an FA right now. However, when it was accepted on 21 June 2016, it was just a Start-class article. Over time, however, the banner was updated to B-class and is finally promoted recently to FA. The AFC banners reflect that. A downgrade is less common, but in principle if you think that the Start-class is given in error, you could change everything to Stub-class. Thanks. (There are some remaining concerns, but I'm in a rush and will get to them later.) TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 03:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You do have a point, though. I've sent a message to WT:AFC to see if the AFC community agrees that {{Article history}} replacing the WPAFC banner is a good idea. Thanks for your opinion! From TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Forest Highway 16

Why did you revert my edit on Forest Highway 16? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a misclick. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

418 Tolling

After you added the maint template to the tolling section of the Ontario Highway 418 article, I made a draft for changing the section into prose. Are there any major problems with it? --Username⁶⁸⁹² 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

help me add Kentucky route 987

I made a draft page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:3224:B329:C954:CA7B:E901:494A (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and another editor and I have started the framework for an article. Take a look at WP:USRD/NEW and keep adding appropriate content to the draft. Drafts that stay dormant for six months are subject to deletion, but if you keep editing, there's no deadline. Imzadi 1979 → 10:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

object to your attempt to bypass proper RM process

Hey, I do object to your process of addressing a renaming that you thought was obviously needed, but for which you knew, or jolly well should have figured, would be controversial or disputed or certainly not obvious to others. As you see from my comments at Talk:National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America (which i concede is probably gonna move to Talk:Historic Hotels of America, though there still may be some question, maybe there are in fact more sources using the term), I have figured out that you are probably correct about the need for a move (and how I made what seems to have been a mistake in naming earlier).

But this is exactly what the wp:RM process is for, and it should not have been submitted as a merely "technical" RM. And your actual approach, to request speedy deletion of the redirect with claim it is technical/non-controversial is wrong too, and is even worse, as an attempt to bypass sensible proper process. It amounts to an attempt by you to abuse admin tools (because admin-type tool is required to do the deletion or the move over redirect). I was going to let it go through, but as I wrote this I got more irked and now am disputing your speedy deletion request. You are an experienced editor and you know better. --Doncram (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: it shouldn't be controversial, period.

The program has a specific name, and an article about it has the wrong name. When the answer should be so clear cut (just move it to the correct name), then the page move should be done. If you want to follow a more convoluted process for the sake of following it, be my guest. In a week or so, we'll be where we should be now. Imzadi 1979 → 15:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. There are other options for the best name of the list-article.

I'll acknowledge maybe self-contradicting in my actions: i explicitly asked you to use the wp:RM process, and now you have, and then in the RM i am complaining about not wanting the RM to be going on. Sorry, at this point I am actually unclear on what is best, will come back to this stuff tomorrow probably. Thank you also for nudge elsewhere to me to do better.

And maybe i have over-reacted; i am a bit sensitive about topic of bullying, and that is a term i mentioned somewhere in this (I hope not over-stating anything in the usage), but if this is a one-off disagreement, not part of a pattern, then this is not that. I too have been accused of being too forceful sometimes. --Doncram (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

California State Route 60

Hello; I had removed the category U.S. Route 60 from the California State Route 60 article because they are two different routes. The article for U.S. Route 60 clearly states that it ends in Arizona, and does not reach California. Why do you think California's state route 60 should be in the U.S. Route 60 category? Thank you. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@OvertAnalyzer: what is now SR 60 in California used to be part of US 60. They are related, so the categorization is appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. I see now I should have read the history section of U.S. Route 60. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

lengths

Hi, you directed me elsewhere to look at Pure Michigan Byway. I did, and was astonished by one matter, and felt compelled to post at its Talk page. I did that before checking who wrote the article or what happened in its Featured List review property or anything else; sorry if it might come across badly to you. In the FL review, other editors also could not get past this. I'm just one more data point, i guess, seeing this as the huge, outstanding, salient aspect of the list-article. Can't consider what you directed me there for. I guess this must be a sore point for you. But since the FL was a long time ago now, have you reconsidered or could you? I gather that one reason for it was that it did not display the units, mi. and km., in each cell. While I take it that a datum using the {{convert}} template (testing: 171.54 miles (276.07 km)) would do that? Preview mode shows it does, reporting "171.54 miles (276.07 km)". Concern for exact appearance of stuff in a table, and getting rid of superfluity (is that a word) is admiral, a la Edward Tufte. But why not just hard-code it then? "171.54" then "276.07" or "(276.07)" on line below? I am sure that there must be some way to control display, if a preference for right-alignment is required, perhaps using hidden spaces hard-coded or whatever is necessary. Sorry, this is off-topic to elsewhere, where i do appreciate your thinking and commenting. --Doncram (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe templates/table stuff in wiki-markup has made more available: template:align applied to each number? Or better there is Template:Aligned table, though maybe with some caution about using it. Sorry again. --Doncram (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: I pointed you to the list to illustrate a concept. I think you're under the impression that we have to have a single article on HHA as a program and a separate list for the member hotels. However, Pure Michigan Byway has both in one place. Imzadi 1979 → 21:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for your participation at Talk:National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America (soon to be moved/renamed to Talk:Historic Hotels of America), responding to my many questions. You add independent info and are apparently always correct in all of your opinions!  :) I wonder, can you comment there about actual or approximate amount of the annual hotel fee for HHA membership? I also wonder if you know anything about percentages or amounts of fees derived by HHA for a hotel's bookings. Even if numbers aren't reliably sourced and cannot be stated in the article, having a rough idea would inform further editing in terms of order/extent of mention. BTW i posted this at wt:CFD just now, about re-creating the deleted category. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Help please

Any idea where I could find information about rail grade crossings on the Interstates, historically? I don't have much access to libraries, so it would have to be online, and I'm mainly interested in Michigan and Indiana. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I don't have ready access to a source. The official state maps would indicate where Interstates and railroads crossed, but I don't know if they would indicate if those crossings were grade separated or not. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If memory serves, they did an update of all the section maps, circa 68-78. That's the era I'm recalling for their removal. Digging deeper. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 55

@Imzadi1979: Just adding hyperlinks. Why did you revert? 100.2.34.35 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary. It does not need, nor should it have, all highways listed.

Also, it's unnecessary to use the {{ping}} template to a ping an editor to his or her own talk page; he or she will get a notification of a new message no matter what. Editing the talk page to fix a faulty ping will then second a second notification, and if enabled, a second email alert as well. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. 100.2.34.35 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Thailand highway infobox parameters

Hi. You set up Template:Infobox road/name/THA back in 2010, and I see it takes three type parameters: R, T and M. From what I gather, R is for national highways, and M is for motorways. But what is T for? I couldn't find documentation of this anywhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paul 012: looking at the sub-template's code, T=Thailand Route. That was probably coded when the old infobox templates were merged into {{infobox road}}, so it must have been in use at that time and fell out of use since. In Template:Infobox road/link/THA, T is set as an alias of M, and in Template:Infobox road/shield/THA, it calls a slightly different motorway marker.

There is a fourth type code, AH=Asian Highway as well in the various subtemplates. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It calls a blue marker instead of green, indicating a tolled motorway. Thanks for the pointer! --Paul_012 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I created that subtemplate. I remember creating blue and green shields more than I do the template. –Fredddie™ 02:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Road junction lists

Hi - I'm looking for help interacting with a relatively new user, User:Oliver Wendell 2009, who has been expending large amounts of effort working on road junction lists in southern New England. A primary part of his work is changing many of the destinations in the lists, in what appears to be violation of WP:RJL. I have had almost no success in engaging with the editor on his talk page, and because of the volume of his output, it seems impractical to address the changes on each state highway article's talk page. Would you mind taking a look at the user's edits and my responses and let me know what would be a reasonable way forward? You could start with the history for Massachusetts Route 2A. I'm conscious of the three-revert rule and feel I've done all I can at this point. Thanks, --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ken Gallager: I'd suggest taking the discussion to WT:USRD, and inviting Oliver Wendell 2009 to that conversation. Keep the discussion focused on the principle that we follow the signage, and perhaps something will come of it. If nothing else, some project regulars who are administrators can intervene more directly. (I've seen users who refuse to discuss concerns on talk pages blocked from editing until they respond to those concerns, thus forcing a dialog to happen.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful. I do want to know how hard and fast the project guidelines are. If I'm being too rigid about upholding the destinations rule, I'd like to know. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ken Gallager: MOS:RJL says that we follow the signage, and we've interpreted that as transcribing the content of the main BGS for an exit into our house format. The contents of supplemental signage goes into the notes, if editors feel it's appropriate. It's not supposed to list what we think the signage should say for an exit, but what it actually does. Of course, DOTs have been known to update signage, so it's possible that an edit changing the cities is just updating our article to match new conditions. Imzadi 1979 → 12:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ken Gallager: just a minor issue of semantics. WT:RJL is not a talk page for the U.S. Roads project. It's the talk page for the Manual of Style page on road junction lists, and it has an international scope. I initially suggested you post at WT:USRD, which is more frequently watched by USRD editors, including a few project members who are administrators. Imzadi 1979 → 13:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Arggh. I went to WT:USRD first, but saw the pointer there to go to WT:RJL. Okay, I'll repost on WT:USRD. Thanks for the catch. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ken Gallager: that pointer is more about discussions to change the standards, but I think in this case you'd get a better result discussing the application of them at the project page, not the MOS page. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Highway status

Hi, is there a standard or discussion that you can point me to? It seems odd to state things that aren't the case with a topic, as doing so has no end(a highway doesn't go to New York City, a highway isn't an interstate highway, a highway isn't a dirt road, and so on). It's hard to prove a negative or cite something that isn't the case. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: well, all of the Michigan state highway articles should indicate NHS status (or non status), and most of the GAs on state highways in the US include it as well. In this case, we can cite a negative as there are maps for each state and many metropolitan areas that indicate NHS status/substatus for the roadways indicated therein right down to the segment level. (For example, U.S. Route 41 in Michigan is only NHS from the Wisconsin state line north to the Portage Lake Lift Bridge and not NHS north of there to Copper Harbor, which coincidentally coincides with National Scenic Byway status.) Imzadi 1979 → 13:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Imzadi1979, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Importance of Michigan Legislature

Hello, my understanding of consensus is that if Ohio's, Indiana's, and Wisconsin's state legislatures are not in American politics, then Michigan's should not be either. Also, it sticks out in the top-importance category, which is for the most notable presidents and complex current events. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I find it odd that a legislature in the US isn't listed as "American politics". Perhaps the other states' legislatures are the ones mis-tagged and should be added? Imzadi 1979 → 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics#Inclusion_of_state_legislatures_in_this_taskforce so that this matter can be settled. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Round Lake (Michigan) cleanup and list feedback and tips welcome

Thank you for the table cleanup on Round Lake (Michigan), I'm a bit new to tables and welcome feedback and tips. I assume you used a tool for cleanup, which one did you use? Autowikibrowser? I'd like to apply the tool to Silver Lake (Michigan), Clear Lake (Michigan), Mud Lake (Michigan), and Long Lake (Michigan). Those lists at the top of the List of lakes of Michigan page. I'm looking for feedback on my process and format at Wikipedia Lakes Talk page though I'd like to integrate with Wikidata for page links. I will incorporate the accessibility features your cleanup added, I was unaware of those. Feedback or other thoughts welcome too. Cheers Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfgang8741: there are a couple of scripts that I use in general, but that editing is just good ol' fashioned manual editing with some judicious use of the search and replace function under Advanced on the standard editing toolbar. Imzadi 1979 → 12:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about use of bolding in periodical bibliography (cite journal template) Comment

Hi: I saw that you have worked on journal citations in the past. I have a question regarding the use of bolding for volume numbers of periodicals.

Example (from Richard Worsam Meade I article):

• De Cunzo, Lu Ann (April 1983). "An Historical Interpretation of William Birch's Print 'High Street, From Ninth Street, Philadelphia'". Pennsylvania History. 50 (2): 109–147. JSTOR 27772895.

What is the purpose of bolding the volume number of the periodical if nothing else in the citation is bolded? Is it the fact that it is used for one publication published in several volumes or something else? It just looks strange to me because my understanding of how bolding works is that whatever is bolded can be searched and linked to the lede of an article; example: John Smith. I hope this is a clear explanation of my question. Thanks very much. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@FeanorStar7: I don't have a good answer to your question. My understanding is that when the citation templates were first set up, the volume number was put in bold to follow a similar practice in some academic citation styles. The practice has just continued since then. Imzadi 1979 → 15:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thanks very much. I appreciate it. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Climate Chart

I noticed you removed the chart; it is not duplicative as the other box shows Traverse City which is substantially different than the chart which is for the National Lakeshore. You may have noticed that the data was substatially different from the figures for Traverse City. As for it being in metric; it was already like that and maybe it can be converted. If there is an application that can convert it quickly let me know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: two climate boxes are duplicative. Given the duplication, one needs to go. It was also problematic to import a box from another Wikipedia, especially when the given information is metric first, which is a no-no for American topics per our MOS.

In the future, it's a good idea to create a new topic on a talk page with the "New section" button at the top, or to customize the edit summary to use the new section heading instead of the old one. In creating this section here, your edit summary looks like you were replying to a different topic entirely.)

Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The McNitt Act.

Hi, I saw that you removed my edit. I have just recently notice that some call Act 51 of 1951 by its popular name and thought it should be noted. Can you explain why this is not a valid contribution? That being said, is there two acts that have the same popular name the one in 1930s and this one? If so, should this be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.80.123 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of the history of the state highway system is cited to secondary sources, like Making Michigan Move, the history of MDOT. That book, and most of the other sources on the system, doesn't use that name for the law. Additionally, yes, there is another law from 1931 also called the McNitt Act, so maybe most sources omit that name for the 1951 act. In either case, it's just not a necessary detail that needs to be in the article, especially if the only sourcing is the popular name caption in the law itself. Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Navbox

Can you please explain why you undid my revision to the article National Highway System (United States) since tge Nav box Template:US highway acts contains a link to the article ? It makes sense to me to have that NavBox there since there is not a separate article for the National Highway System Designation Act. I understand that you know a lot, have a lot of experience, and have made many contributions, but it seems like you should consider the contributions of others or at least respond to their requests for an explanation. Respectfully, User:700jn Thank you for all your work.

Simply, the article is about a highway system, and the navbov about laws just isn't needed there in that context. Imzadi 1979 → 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Sincerely, 700jn (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)User:700jn

ACR

FYI, I have finished a review for one of your articles at ACR and started the other. I know this may be little comfort to you, as the whole process has sat dormant for so long. However, I'm slowly coming to a realization that what I've been spare time on for the past few years is an exercise in futility, so trying to get back into Wikipedia editing, as that actually did some good (or so I hope). Dave (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Some reversals

Hi, Imzadi! I reversed some of your edits on Puerto Rico road articles because I'm afraid you aren't aware of this standard that was discussed last year. I would like you to participate in it because it's possible that some ideas can be improved. I regret what happened. Yamil Rivera (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've clarified several doubts. I would like to know if it's correct for a road photo to be placed on top of the infobox road, since I've seen that users have the freedom to place photos anywhere in an article. Thanks again. Yamil Rivera (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yarfpr: the infobox should be in the upper right of the article, ahead of any photos. It essentially serves as the "lead image" for an article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Great! In what other people respond to us in the discussion, I'm going to correct a few things in the articles. Thank you! Yamil Rivera (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Adminship

Please run. You have all the rights an admin needs, and people will like you as an admin. Thanks. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Route 141

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 14, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 14, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect: US-460 Bypass in Kentucky

Hi, you recently rejected my Article for Submission for the redirect article regarding the US-460 Bypass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xtreemecore#Linking_to_US_460_Byp. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:U.S._Route_460_Bypass_(Kentucky)). The article I redirected to is the home for all special routes of US-460 in both Kentucky and Virginia, including all former routes. No matter which US-460 bypass you wanted, all of them would be in that same article meaning you could redirect and get to them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtreemecore (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Xtreemecore: because there are multiple examples, it shouldn't be a redirect. Instead, it should be a disambiguation page listing links to the specific entries. This allows others to fix links to the generic to be links to the specific. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviations in road names

Hi, Imzadi! I would like to know if it's allowed to abbreviate street names, especially when they include honorary titles (such as Dr. Barbosa Street for Doctor Barbosa Street, etc.) or to simplify people's names that are too long (Kennedy Street for John F. Kennedy Street). In Puerto Rico it's very common to honor people by giving their names to the streets, and those names are usually too long in some cases (honorific title, first name, middle name, nickname, first surname and second surname, as applicable), so I would like to know if it's preferable to keep the official version compared to the colloquial form, which is the most used in addresses. Yamil Rivera (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is a guideline either way, per se. I'd go with however the local jurisdiction prints the names on street signs. So if they substitute "Dr." for "Doctor" or omit given names in favor of listing just surnames, then that's what I'd do as well.

The only real guideline I've ever seen is that the street suffix is spelled out in full when talking about the street as a whole, but abbreviated in addresses, to wit: "Main Street" but "123 Main St." Even then, that's just the convention used in the AP Stylebook, and other guides may abbreviate the suffix. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Italian Hall Disaster

Thank you for tidying up my edit. Grassynoel (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of A-2 (Michigan county highway)

Hello! Your submission of A-2 (Michigan county highway) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Imzadi1979. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Ann Bedsole.
Message added 11:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A-2 (Michigan county highway)

Hi, are you returning to this nomination, or should we close it as unsuccessful? Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

VFH Subdivisions

Sorry for my harsh tone earlier in the Rolling Wood article. I agree, and moved the information into the main article for the village (it makes more sense that way; you are right with how it doesn't make sense for them to be put in separate articles). Again, my sincerest apologies. LINYperson615 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for A-2 (Michigan county highway)

On 5 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A-2 (Michigan county highway), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that with the designation of County Highway A-2 in 1970, Mrs. Howard "Gene" Temple became the first Michigan woman to acquire a highway designation from the State Highway Commission? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A-2 (Michigan county highway). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A-2 (Michigan county highway)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hello, Imzadi1979,

This is just a reminder that you need to notify the page creator every time you tag a page they started for with a CSD, PROD or AFD tag. It's a courtesy and if you use Twinkle, it will happen automatically when you tag a page. Please set up your Twinkle Preferences so that this happens whenever you tag a page for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I've manually notified the page creator in question after I completed my tagging as the user created a couple hundred mistitled or otherwise inappropriate redirects. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea when I posted this message that you had tagged 300+ of their page creations for deletion. A single notice was a better option than flooding their talk page with hundreds of Twinkle notices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Link Smurf

04 February 2020 was the last time Link Smurd socked. Then, in a comment 5 months ago, he posted this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrI9YSZRPMo. How is he still active? Is there a sock? "Since Wikipedia doesn't allow the eolgi world to stay there (is it considered as vandalism). I just simply stopped editing wikipedia and I created the "eolgipedia" instead, a fandom wiki where the "eolgi" and other stuff will stay there forever." 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 23:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That may be, but we recently saw some edits to Interstates to insert that word again. The edits were quickly reverted. So either someone is impersonating/copying Link Smurf, or it's Link Smurf doing it again. Imzadi 1979 → 17:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 296

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 17, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 17, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

M60

M60 motorway redirects to the disambiguated title:

• at 12:56, 11 October 2020 MoonlightTulsi moved page M60 motorway to M60 motorway (UK) (Specificity)

Rather than move this to M60 motorway (Great Britain) should we move this back to the base title if this is unnecessary disambiguation? wbm1058 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: that would be fine as well if that works out, but the current disambiguation term is inconsistent with the rest of the British motorway articles, which use "Great Britain" and not "UK". Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I see there is a M60 motorway (Hungary), so I suppose we have either a primary redirect or we should retarget M60 motorway to M60 as an {{R from ambiguous term}}. Not sure how motorway titles like this are generally handled. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: the various practices seem quite inconsistent, so I can't give you good guidance there. M10 motorway and M3 motorway are each its own disambiguation page, but M18 motorway and M2 motorway each redirects to a list of all M18/M-18 or M2/M-2 highways. However, I can reiterate that "UK" is not used as the disambiguation term, probably because Northern Ireland has its own motorway numbering which can duplicate that of the island of Great Britain in the UK. On that basis, the current title is "wrong". Imzadi 1979 → 05:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wisconsin highway maps

How were you able to get copies of older Wisconsin state highway maps to cite in U.S. Route 8 and U.S. Route 141? I'm thinking about trying to get Wisconsin Highway 131 back to GA status, and the biggest barrier is finding official highway maps to cite in place of the self-published source, since most of them aren't online. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31: I paid an in-person visit to the WisDOT Library in Madison. I took copious notes, including the citation details, and then updated the articles after I got back home. Sadly, I didn't remember to do the research on the southern end of I-43 until after I was already out of state. Imzadi 1979 → 04:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31: check out the Wisconsin state archives www.wistatedocuments.org I didn't dig too deeply but I found some maps from the mid-70s through the 90s. –Fredddie™ 08:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: I figured I might have to make a library visit in order to review the maps. I'll look into what that would entail. Thanks for letting me know.

@Fredddie: Thanks for the link, that should at least help with the more recent years. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31: I originally contacted WisDOT back in 2011 or 2012, and they told me at the time that they planned to scan their map collection and put it online "within in the next year or so". It does appear that some of their collection is online at https://content.mpl.org/digital/collection/WDTL already, just not maps.

Last year at WikiConference North America, I spoke with someone about applying for a grant toward purchasing a poster scanner. My idea is to scan my Michigan map collection to augment what my home state has put online, and then offer to help scan WisDOT's collection there at their library in Madison. After that, I'd put the equipment up for loan to other USRD members to get old maps online.

That all said, the staff at the WisDOT Library was very accommodating. They were located in main DOT office building, and at the time, the main map archives were in a room across the hall from their office. They just left me to my work and let me do what I needed to complete my research. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. I'll try and reach out to WisDOT about getting access to the library, schedule and pandemic willing. The poster scanner is a good idea. I also have a lot of older maps that could make useful sources, some of which will help me fill in the gaps of what Wisconsin hasn't posted online. Though I can see copyright becoming an issue with any centralized effort to scan and share maps, especially with things like oil company maps that were commercially produced. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I avoid the oil company maps. It's hard to build a consistent series of maps to set up a good baseline for research, unlike the official state DOT maps. One thought I've had is that Michigan's maps up to 1957 are public domain, so if we ever assembled a good digital collection, we could put them on Commons. Do the same with other states, and we could build a centralized resource like we started to do with the AASHTO committee minutes. Imzadi 1979 → 08:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I was doing some more research tonight, and it turns out most of Wisconsin's official highway maps are online after all! The UW-Milwaukee library's digital map collection includes all but a few of them. That should go a long way toward getting official sources into the Wisconsin highway articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31: then lets update {{cite WisDOT map}} to add the links, and then Template:Cite WisDOT map/testcases will serve as a handy index to all of them. Imzadi 1979 → 04:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

We also need to add previously missing maps into the template. Imzadi 1979 → 05:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

{ping|TheCatalyst31}} I added the maps that I could find in the collection to {{cite WisDOT map}}. It's about roughly half at first pass, although there could be more in the collection that I couldn't find. Imzadi 1979 → 08:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I filled in most of the missing links for the late twentieth century. We're still missing a lot of the earliest and most recent years, plus a few random years like 1968 that the collection doesn't have. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite Unseen update

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.

• You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new generally reliable icon (described below).
• New categorizations/icons:
  • Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
  • Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
  • Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
  • Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as varied reliability. Note that generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
• With the addition of the new categorizations, the biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

Thank you

Hey just dropping by to say thanks for recategorizing Category:Lists of roads in the United States. I wasn't happy with what I had done, took a break, thought about it, went to the store and when I came back, you had fixed it all up! And did so in a way I have done on some other listings. Don't know why I did what I did in this case. Happy holidays! --DB1729 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft AfC

Thanks for the suggestions Imzadi1979 Firejore (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 18:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Imzadi1979

I'm new in wiki.. How to add data in wiki and photos? Can you give some tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Eagle 4 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I-40 in Tennessee

I've started a discussion at Talk:Interstate 40 in Tennessee related to whether or not information about the Memphis tanker explosion should be included. This event does appear to have been both blamed on the design of the road and led to the reconstruction of the interchange. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding maps in infoboxes

Hey there!

So recently, I've been making some highway maps, and I've been able to add some of the route maps to the actual page itself, but I can't seem to attach them to the infobox. I'm not sure how to do this, and I would really like to learn how.

I've been using Google Earth Pro to make the maps with, and I've been exporting the files as a KML. I'm not sure if there's anything I'm doing wrong, or if I need to use a different program to do this with. Either way, any help is accepted.

Thank you!

TBKS1 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@TBKS1: that's a good first step. Then I use User:Evad37/kmlToJson to convert the KML over to a GeoJSON file that {{maplink}} uses. Then it's a matter of adding maplink into the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 03:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

One note: the GeoJSON files can take some time to cache, so they'll appear correctly in preview but not the article until that caching is done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is really useful! - Ethan TBKS1 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

West Virginia Turnpike

Why did you revert my edits on West Virginia Turnpike? As I clearly stated in the edit summary, the Turnpike is NOT the same thing as I-77 in West Virginia, which extends south and north of the Turnpike. The Turnpike also has its own history etc that should be discussed separately from the history of the free sections of I-77 elsewhere in the state. Also, that was a misuse of rollback too, but that's the minor issue here. 2601:187:4581:7F50:50B4:B22F:A194:DC28 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So after doing some digging, it seems like the merge and redirect occurred after a brief discussion on the talk page and a (very weak) consensus among maybe three or four editors (hardly a "consensus" as I've seen the term applied recently). I've opened a discussion to revert this, especially considering the fact that two subsequent comments about the merge being confusing went unanswered. I would like you to address why you used rollback to revert me though, since my edits weren't vandalism. 2601:187:4581:7F50:50B4:B22F:A194:DC28 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

DANG IT!

You keep on trying to delete my Wikipedia Pages. They are on proposed deletion because they are apparently "non-notable." These streets are main ways through Omaha, and they should are notable. They are main ways to get to different parts of Omaha. I kow nothing of Michigan. Do you of Omaha? Please stop trying to destroy my stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhawbh (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bhawbh: these roadways do not appear to meet the bar set by WP:GNG. In other words, the articles do not show "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Being a "main way[] through Omaha" does not mean they are notable for our purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

problem w/ user

I Created a report on commons and hopefully someone can help. I see you have had problems with same user. Have a nice day. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Disambiguation needed

If an experienced editor adds {{dn}} to an article, it means they've encountered an ambiguous link which they cannot resolve. It's no good just removing the dn tag - the underlying problem is still there - and the next DABfixer who runs across the problem will add the tag straight back. It is more important to get Wikipedia right than to make it look pretty. Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fixed them. The DABfixer tool is giving a false positive for Trempealeau, Wisconsin. Anyway, I would just put the {{DN}} outside of Jct and maybe a comment so it doesn't break the template. We'll see it soon enough. –Fredddie™ 21:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also no good adding a template into the middle of another template's parameter that can't handle it. When the result is garbage as seen here, that is even worse IMHO than a link that points to a disambiguation page. So again, please stop placing {{dn}} in the a |location= in {{jctint}}-family templates, and please stop placing it in the |city1= et al. parameters in {{jct}}. Imzadi 1979 → 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a redirect on my KY 2245 page, because I do not know how to create a redirect

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGs2007 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Did I just say this 2 times?

So i thanked you for saying thanks on my KY 2245 page but then say the same thing on my KY 6316. I sounded like a bot, because they repeat things alot. TheGs2007 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

SS Badger

Thanks for correcting that cite link; I still use tools which don't come with that type of cite tag, and I never intend to just be a 'courtesy of YouTube' type of editor (it's my worst pet peeve with broadcasters airing old content). Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:CSX Grand Rapids Subdivision

You said that this page has been reviewed. It can be accepted at Articles for Creation;--General electric p30ch (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

MDOT ArcGIS document

The press release states "With such a storied history and detailed project, people are encouraged to visit the US-31-I-94 Connector StoryMap, created by the MDOT Southwest Region GIS unit to provide an overview of the project's history and preview the stages of the project from design to completion." (emphasis mine) If MDOT isn't included in the cite then we're not crediting the creator properly. It's frustrating that this information isn't in the document itself. Mapsax (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

MDOT still wouldn't be the publisher; that's ArcGIS. Then when you look at the article, it's credited to a specific author, Cory Smith. It states there that he is employed by MDOT, just as many journal articles list the academic/professional affiliations of the authors. (Presumably, Mr. Smith works for the MDOT Southwest Region GIS unit.) Those affiliations are not listed in a citation though, so the citation as presently constituted is correct. The press release is not relevant to how the ArcGIS document is cited. Imzadi 1979 → 03:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ive got a question

How did you transfer KY 3067 to: List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (3000–3499) just a quick question. Thank you for understanding TheGs2007 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheGs2007: I did the following:

1. Open Kentucky Route 3067 and List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (3000–3499) in separate browser tabs.
2. Click the edit button for KY 3067 and copy all of the text except the categories.
3. Click the edit link for the section after where KY 3067 should appear in the list.
4. Create the new heading for KY 3067 at the top of the edit window.
5. Paste the text copied from KY 3067 under that heading and clean it up.
6. Update the edit summary to reflect the KY 3067 heading I created and add the "merge from [[Kentucky Route 3067]]" description. This step is important for legal reasons to say where the text was merged from. Save the edit.
7. Remove the text from the KY 3067 article and replace it with a redirect to List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (3000–3499)#KY 3067, i.e. #REDIRECT [[List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (3000–3499)#KY 3067]]. Update the categories at the bottom as well.
8. Update the edit summary to include the "merge to [[List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (3000–3499)]]" text. This step is important for legal reasons to say where the text was merged to. Save the edit.
9. Done.

Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you because i am having future creatings of KY 1767, KY, 1245, KY 762, And KY 2712 TheGs2007 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheGs2007: if those are rural secondary/supplemental routes, please don't create articles for them. Instead, you should add them to the appropriate list and then create a redirect to the list. Kentucky may have thousands of state-maintained highway designations, but we are not going to have thousands of articles on them. Imzadi 1979 → 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for new format on List of state highways in Kentucky (1000–1999)

Thanks for the new format on List of state highways in Kentucky (1000–1999)! I debated using that different format. Thanks for converting it for me! I really appreciate it. God bless. Matthewshill (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)